TedM

I agree. It may be that a flesh and blood Jesus was exactly what Paul had in mind when he wrote verse 16, but if so, it isn't clearly stated in the translation I looked at.

ted

andrewcriddle

1 Corinthians 2:16 'the mind of the Lord' probably means 'the mind of Christ' which makes the concluding statement 'we have the mind of Christ' an answer to the earlier question.

In many manuscripts 1 Corinthians 5:5 reads unambiguously 'the day of the Lord Jesus' assuming (as seems probable but far from certain) that the original text is 'day of the Lord' then in the context of the solemn repetitions of Lord Jesus in verse 4 I think Lord in verse 5 probably also means Lord Jesus. (I'm not confident on this one.)

In 1 Corinthians 10:22 the Lord has probably the same meaning as in 21 and 22 (cup of the Lord and Table of the Lord) In the context of 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 and 11:16-27 Cup of the Lord and Table of the Lord presumably mean Cup of Christ and Table of Christ. Hence in 1 Corinthians 10:22 the Lord probably means Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:23 is in context (note immediately following 'Lord Jesus') almost certainly Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:11 'Fear of the Lord' is probably in effect a short embedded quotation from the OT and means 'Fear/Reverence towards God'.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon

Yes. As spin points out, I could have chosen a better example; but Paul offers quite a few examples.

The key here for me is Barnabas's "For if He had not come in the flesh, how could men have been saved by beholding Him?"

That is, according to 'Barnabas', by coming in the flesh, we have been able to 'behold Him'. 'Barnabas' is dated from 80-120 CE, and is one of the earliest letters. There appear to be no explicit references to the Gospels, so it is not part of 'the Gospel tradition' (as Doherty puts it). There are few details about Christ, and he is described in OT terms. Is there any reason to assume that Barnabas had a view that differed from Paul's, in regard to the significance of coming "in the flesh"?

What is needed is to look at the literature as a whole, for common ideas and themes. Doherty just doesn't do that. He tends to treat each apologist as if they wrote in a vacuum, but I think we need to place them within the literature of the day. For example, nearly all (if not all) his MJ apologists wrote after 160 CE. There are lots of references to a HJ before then, so Christianity seems to have been HJ-centric from 100 to 160, then MJ-centric from 160 to 180, then HJ-centric again, which is a weird series of events. But I see that Doherty is trying to push those dates around to get his MJ writers earlier, which is interesting.

I agree. I think that something odd is going on, that historicists need to explain.

GakuseiDon

I would express it as: even among those who thought of Jesus as a man there doesn't appear to be any interest in him beyond that which came from scriptures.

AFAIK, no-one in the first few centuries complained "we don't know anything about the life of Christ". Does anyone know when this was first expressed? I suspect Origen, but not sure.

Looking forward to it.

spin

My interpretation of the text disagrees with yours. There is a contrast between "mind of the lord" and "mind of christ", which suggests that because we have christ and he is in communion with the lord we know the mond of the lord because we have the mind of christ.

Again I disagree. It is the Byzantine tradition, which is almost always the later tradition adds the "Jesus". Stick to the Alexandrian, it has fewer examples of the smoothing hand.

Those steeped in the HB know of the day of the lord from Isaiah.

Strangely enough, I disagree yet again. (1 Cor 11:26-27 are clearly Jesus related.) In 10:22, we are dealing with a Jew who had naturally partaken in Jewish meals -- all sacrifices offered by ordinary people at festivals were ritual meals in which the individual participated. These were feasts of the lord. Christ is the sacrifice, not the owner of the table, ie god, so the table of the lord is transparent to me.

Again, my reading is the textual contrast between the lord and the lord Jesus, which in my mind makes you almost certainly wrong. Did Paul receive word of what Jesus did on that night from Jesus or by means of god? I would expect a very different telling of the tale had Jesus been the initial reference, ie "I received from the lord Jesus what I handed to you, that, on the night he was betrayed, he took a loaf of bread..."

I feel that most of your interpretations are both wrong and doctrinaire and you didn't actually deal with my post at all, for my interest was in how the original audiences of Paul would have been able to tell the reference of the word in the context, not how you with 1900 years of interpretation behind you interprets it. Note that I said before the questions you answered, "How did the reader know when Paul was using kyrios to mean god and when not?", then after them, "How could those readers have chosen Jesus as the reference?" I'm sorry, if I was unclear, but I wasn't after your interpretations at all and have given mine to illustrate the problem I was posing.


spin

TedM

If these "Lord" references are clearly Jesus related, why isn't 1 Cor 2:8 clear also? Why assume interpolation if we have some other examples that are clear? And, doesn't the fact that Paul refers to Jesus as "Lord Jesus" numerous times give weight to the idea that he might just also refer to Jesus as "Lord" on occasion?

ted

spin

They are also interpolations as I understand them, as they promote the equivocal nature of kyrios.


spin

TedM

Now I'm starting to get it. Your argument basically then is that Paul would not have done such an inconsistent thing, so kyrios--when used alone--is always used to refer to God. Any passage that contradicts this notion is therefore an interpolation.

One test of this is how strong the other evidence is for interpolation--does it not fit the context, is it un-Paul-like, does it use unusual language or structure--things in addition to the hypothesis being tested.

To better understand this, I must ask:

Without an assumption of consistency by Paul, how many, and which uses of only kyrios by Paul are quite clearly referring to Jesus? How many to God? How many are not clear?

As for the unclear references why wouldn't it make as much sense to say that all of those are interpolations and the ones that are perfectly clear aren't? Why should we NOT expect Paul to use the same word to mean two different things as long as the meanings are clear?

If all inconsistent uses of kyrios are interpolations, why shouldn't we assume that all references to the "Lord Jesus" really only originally said "Jesus" because otherwise Paul is using kyrios to mean both "God" and as a description or identification for Jesus?

Who gets to decide that kyrios can't be referring to Jesus when used alone even though it is used for Lord Jesus? Who gets to decide that Paul is never unclear?

ted

gurugeorge

Hey, you are right, it's just as ambiguous as the Paul quote! As I said I'm not sure about Barnabas, mainly because I've only recently started glancing through it, and despite my previous response I'm not sure Barnabas shouldn't be placed more in the MJ camp anyway (i.e. chokka with OT, little room for the familiar Jesus), in which case the response to your question would be: not if they were both MJ-ers!

In context, the idea seems to be that He came "in the flesh" because God manifesting as he is would have been too much to "look upon" (like the sun). That can't be a historical reference. i.e. it can't refer to those who knew a historical Jesus, because then, like with that kind of reading of the Paul quote, it would mean only those who knew the then-living Jesus are saved; but it can't be "looking" in the metaphorical sense you require, because then there would be no bite to the sun simile. (e.g., what difference would it make to Christians living now whether some people had found the full vision of God unbearable, so long as He had manifested in some kind of revelation that can be passed on? So what's the meaning of this concession to fragile human sensibilities if it doesn't refer to something present, living? This suggests mystical experience.)

I disagree, he talks about common themes a lot - it's precisely the fact that none of the common themes seem to be "Jesus" that's the puzzle!

Dating is a tricky thing, and I'm sure partisans of one "side" in this argument will always accuse those of the other "side" of picking, out of the vast range of more or less feasible datings, those that suit their arguments. If the others of the "lots of references" are like the ones you've cited from Paul and Barnabas so far, then I hope you'll forgive me for remaining doubtful!

And that's all I think one can reasonably ask a HJ-er (or any interested observer, for that matter) to admit, based on the evidence - that there very definitely is a puzzle. But it's surprising how many won't admit even that.

GakuseiDon

Yep!
Gurugeorge, I've highlighted part of your last sentence, because this to me is any important point: if a HJer was able to write so similarly to an MJer that it is difficult to separate them, then how can we know whether a writer was an MJer or not???
He doesn't examine common themes between the HJ writers and the MJ ones, which is the focus of my rebuttal. You've noted yourself the similarities between 'Barnabas' and the MJ writers. Again, if a HJ writer like 'Barnabas' can write so similarly to an MJ writer, then how do we identify whether a writer is an MJer or not?
Yes, but even if Paul was found to have made an explicit statement that placed Christ on earth, it would still be a puzzle. 'Barnabas' and Ignatius are definitely HJers, and lack apparent interest in the details of Jesus's ministry. So it is a puzzle regardless of the validity of the MJ position. Let's work out why the HJ writers appeared to lack such interest, and then apply the same to Paul. If Paul shows a match there, what would you conclude?